VIP Paedophile Ring

[MyBeloved]

[[BBC News - VIP abuse accuser Carl Beech claims friend was killed
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48871460]]

I have been following this story wirh horror. I believe him.

Yes, I think having sex with someone much younger, who is barely over the age of consent, is not a massive step away from child abuse. Add into the mix prostitution, and the likelihood that the young person is vulnerable, and it becomes even more dodgy.

And that applies whether the people involved are gay or straight.

www.foiacentre.com/news-Nick-trial-Carl-Beech-Harvey-Proctor.html

As someone who is actually involved in child protection, I can assure you that having sex with someone much younger who is just over the age of consent is miles away from child abuse.

Are the people who believed him on a hunch with well meaning but probably incorrect statements about ‘why would he lie’ now going to accept they were totally wrong, now that the full evidence is in the public domain and there was no proof or credibility in any of his stories that were thoroughly investigated after also being believed by the police with no good reason to?

@Shortstuff99 doubt it. The op @MyBeloved has gone very quiet.

Victims should always be taken seriously and treated with sensitivity and respect. The people accused also deserve to have the cases investigated properly.

Over 2 million the Met police spent on this case. 2 million on a total wild goose chase that ruined lives!! Backed up by Tom Watson and idiot “journalists” like James O’Brien who it seems to me were just desperate to believe that posh Tories really are evil incarnate.

The police have got to stop with this “believing the victim” stuff. In fact until a crime has been proved, surely “victim” is the wrong word anyway? Yes, you treat accusers with respect. But how can you believe someone who makes an accusation without fully Investigating all the details of that accusation in an impartial and balanced way?

And just like the fake rumour of the MMR jab causing autism, how many people will have seen snippets of this but not the full story or the exoneration, and will have views of individuals and institutions unfairly tainted forever and pass it on to others.

prh47bridge I remember you from the Prince Andrew thread where you stated that because the victim was 17, and the legal age of consent was 16 in the UK (where she’d been flown to by Jeffrey Epstein) Prince Andrew had done nothing wrong.

Do you seriously work in child protection? 😳

I'm still here, I still don't know. I guess we may never know with absolute certainty. I am wary when very powerful men are implicated as the truth rarely surfaces.

Beloved have you not read any of the evidence against Carl Beech? I don’t doubt rich powerful people have got away with crimes but in this case I believed Beech made the whole thing up.
Do you really think he would have been sent to jail for 18 years if there was any doubt?
Maybe as they are Tories (apart from Lord Janner) you think they must be guilty.

I'm no Tory hater. That is not what I think at all. Perhaps I am simply wishing for justice in any form for those who have been hurt by powerful men, I don't know.

I just find the whole thing incredibly sad, and have a deeply suspicious feeling when it comes to such men and cover ups.

You still don't know? Wow. He's been convicted in a court of law with absolutely overwhelming evidence. You know - hard facts. Not feelings.

Very powerful men are implicated as the truth rarely surfaces

How would you know?

Sorry, you’re sexist and that’s all there is to it

a deeply suspicious feeling when it comes to such men and cover ups.

That is the very definition of biased and prejudiced thinking. Absolutely horrible.

Unfortunately mybeloved is a classic example of the type of people on here who instantly believe anyone who makes a claim of sexual abuse and believes that they are instant victims. #metoo is good in many ways but it’s also got a lot to answer for with people jumping on the bandwagon making false claims and being instantly believed despite evidence to the contrary.

prh47bridge I remember you from the Prince Andrew thread where you stated that because the victim was 17, and the legal age of consent was 16 in the UK (where she’d been flown to by Jeffrey Epstein) Prince Andrew had done nothing wrong.

Apologies for the late response. I've only had limited internet access for the last week.

You remember incorrectly. I did not say that Prince Andrew had done nothing wrong.

The woman in this case was claiming that Andrew had underage sex with her. The claim appears to have been based on her filing court papers in Florida where the age of consent is 18. However, according to her, the encounters took place in New York and London. In both locations the age of consent is 16. So, on her own evidence, Andrew did not have underage sex with her. Andrew denies having sex with her at all. I did state that, if her claims were true, she had been abused.

I am indeed involved in safeguarding, including training people. I am therefore aware that sexual relationships between adults, even where there is a large age gap, are generally not a safeguarding issue. In this particular instance, the woman would not have been classed as a vulnerable adult and Prince Andrew was not in a position of trust relative to her. So, even if Andrew did have sex with her despite his denials, it would not be a safeguarding issue.

You may think it is wrong for a 41-year old man to have sex with a 17-year old woman (or for a 41-year old woman to have sex with a 17-year old man, or for same sex relationships with a similar age gap) but it is not a safeguarding issue and it does not mean that the older person is a child abuser or a latent child abuser.